An Interesting Tidbit from our friend Daniel Kuehn

[Autolykos]

@Daniel Kuehn

“Optimization” is always a reference to constrained optimization. I think it’s left unsaid because it’s implied.

Has anyone ever made the implication explicit?

@Daniel Kuehn

I strongly agree with you on this. I understand you all don’t like to use math, but I’ve thought for a long time that the math and your logical claims say the same thing. All a constrained optimization problem says is “the agent will continue to do something as long as the additional utility of doing that thing exceeds the additional disutility of doing that thing”. That’s always sounded to me like the sort of claim you all make.

So what’s the point of using math, if you can get to the same conclusions without it?

@Daniel Kuehn

I’m aware - but understand when you ask me what I think about things, I don’t decide what I think with reference to what Austrians or anyone else cares about.

Sorry, I didn’t mean to imply that you do otherwise. My point was that justifying things in terms of math may not satisfiy others (such as Austrians), so they’ll keep asking you for more justification.

@Daniel Kuehn

What I mean is this - no one ever goes out and tries to measure how much utility two people get from something and compare them. That use of intersubjective comparisons would be inappropriate. However, if we only use intersubjective comparisons to do some marginal analysis to derive a result that you agreed above is essentially the same as yours, why shouldn’t we?

Apparently, some people do.

I guess what I’m asking is, how are intersubjective comparisons of utility ever appropriate? Furthermore, if you can reach the same conclusions without using intersubjective comparisions, what’s the point in using them?

@Daniel Kuehn

re: “Fourth and finally, if “the use of marginal utility using a common measure of utility is completely inconsequential”, why is it done? I simply don’t understand.”

Because you can derive considerably more reasonable hypotheses to test than Austrians can.

First off, what is your definition of “reasonable hypothesis”? Second, why must economics be framed in terms of hypotheses to be tested?

@Daniel Kuehn

1. No, it does not “remain to be seen”. The subjectivity thing you all worry so much about is a dead issue. Every economist is a subjectivist and it baffles me that this point even caught on with you guys.

2. See above for the point.

1. What I meant was that it remains to be seen by me. Simply reasserting that it’s a “dead issue” doesn’t convince me of that. Perhaps you don’t care about convincing me, but if so, then I’ll question your entire purpose of being in this thread.

2. I’m still challenging your point.